The problem with this analysis is the number of political parties who claim to be revolutionary cannot even agree among themselves. For example the Socialist Workers Party could not agree on almost anything with the Workers Revolutionary Party, which itself split into two factions, with the SWP claiming the former Soviet Union was “State Capitalist” while the WRP maintaining the USSR was a “Degenerated Workers State”. The fact is does it matter? A good debating shop maybe but about as much relevance to the working class as what colour the loo roll the Pope or Monarch uses!
My own experience tells me that the sole aim of the supposed “vanguard” of the revolution, or those who seek to be the “vanguard” is to replace themselves for the working-class. This is what occurred in the Soviet Union with the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) replacing the democratic structures of the ‘Supreme Soviet’ with themselves. To anybody who has read George Orwell’s Animal Farm where the pigs took over the position of the farmer living in luxury while the rest of the animals, having overthrown the Farmer, Mr Jones, representing capitalism, struggled just as they had under Jones!
My own experience tells me that the sole aim of the supposed “vanguard” of the revolution, or those who seek to be the “vanguard” is to replace themselves for the working-class. This is what occurred in the Soviet Union with the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) replacing the democratic structures of the ‘Supreme Soviet’ with themselves. To anybody who has read George Orwell’s Animal Farm where the pigs took over the position of the farmer living in luxury while the rest of the animals, having overthrown the Farmer, Mr Jones, representing capitalism, struggled just as they had under Jones!
The various political parties who all claim to be Marxists are in fact no such thing. These parties who bicker over the slightest detail such as the one mentioned above are incapable of leading the proletariat to the successful overthrow of capitalism replacing the system of exploitation with one of production for need - not greed - and equality.
The major question of which all others stem from is; who owns the means of production, distribution and exchange the capitalist minority class or the majority working class? The capitalist class have no idea how to operate the means of production they own – this includes all the new technology and not just the factories, transport, land and all that goes with it. That leads me to thinking how do the proletariat seize the means of production which is rightfully theirs? All three classical economists, Adam Smith, David Ricardo and Karl Marx all agree labour creates all wealth. Smith added labour time to Smith's initial theory and Marx put the icing on the cake by depicting labour power as the creation of wealth and the only commodity the worker has to sell to an employer for a monetary wage. That is a relevant today as it was back in the nineteenth century. Deindustrialisation does not alter this central principle.
Three ingredients are necessary which the capitalist class fear and are constantly aiming not to create these conditions for. They introduce laws, give out enough sweeties to buy off and divide the working class to prevent these three ingredients from evolving.
Firstly we need a general withdrawal of labour leading to occupation of the means of production and private property, secondly mass civil disobedience in support of this strike and thirdly the ability to defend the strike and civil demonstrations and occupations. All three of these are essential to a successful socialist revolution leading to truly communist society, and these political parties cannot substitute themselves for the class. That then begs the question who does coordinate the revolutionary mood within the working class should it ever come about? Well, that leadership must come from the point of production, the workplace, be it in transport, the banks, the offices etc and that lead and guidance should come from the militant shop steward’s committees. The only democracy in the workplace as things stand are the election yearly of the shop stewards. This system of true democracy starts at the base point, the workplace. The area councils are the next strata of revolutionary government leading to the national council, or supreme governing body. Everybody from the point of production, pensioners committees and all minority and ethnic groups must have the maximum say in the democratic process. What we have now is not ‘participatory’ democracy but liberal democracy which is not really democracy at all.
All the parties in any liberal democracy are elected to represent the interests of the capitalist class usually at the expense of the working class. Admittedly this is better than fascist dictatorship but it does not substitute workers' control of the economy and industry in all their manifestations. The economy must be planned, not free market as it presently is. Marx maintained the development of the “industrial proletariat” was dependent on the advancement of the “industrial bourgeoisie” which at the time was perfectly true. We have now gone beyond that precondition and the bourgeoisie as a class are no longer necessary. This does not mean murdering individual members of that class as some people think or pretend to think in order to discredit socialism. It simply means a transfer of power from the capitalist class to the working class.
All the parties in any liberal democracy are elected to represent the interests of the capitalist class usually at the expense of the working class. Admittedly this is better than fascist dictatorship but it does not substitute workers' control of the economy and industry in all their manifestations. The economy must be planned, not free market as it presently is. Marx maintained the development of the “industrial proletariat” was dependent on the advancement of the “industrial bourgeoisie” which at the time was perfectly true. We have now gone beyond that precondition and the bourgeoisie as a class are no longer necessary. This does not mean murdering individual members of that class as some people think or pretend to think in order to discredit socialism. It simply means a transfer of power from the capitalist class to the working class.
In order for workers living standards to increase the present ruling class would have a decrease in their living standard. Does anybody need an eight-bedroom house while others are living on the street? To achieve this socialist society built on equality will not come about through voting in its present form. Irrespective of who we vote into government the capitalist or ruling class will still be in charge – the word democracy is all well and good, in their eyes, providing it does not threaten their class status – the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie which is what we have at the moment. Out of this struggle for socialism based on democratic elections at the point of production, in the working-class areas and in care homes a political party may evolve but it is not a precondition for socialist revolution. What is essential are strong trade union rank and file shop stewards forming these revolutionary committees which at the moment we do not have, yet.
Would the bourgeoisie fight back? Yes, without a doubt, they would not hand over the means of production, distribution and exchange land and estates which the minority class presently own. They would fight using their armies, and this applies to any country, to crush the revolutionary workers organisation and it for this reason the proletariat must have the ability to defend themselves meaning an armed wing. This armed wing would defend the revolution, as did the Red Army in the USSR before the likes of Lenin reinterpreted all “power to the soviets” to mean all power to the Bolsheviks and himself in particular. This was when the distorted version of socialism in the USSR began to go tragically wrong. We must learn the lessons of history and not fall for the Soviet model, though it was better than the mess presently prevailing in that part of the world.
In theory the political party would dissolve itself once the overthrow of capitalism has been achieved. In reality would this happen? In my experience after the parties who claim revolutionary status have stopped fighting each other the one which takes the roll of “vanguard” of the revolution will not dissolve itself and hand power to the elected councils. There’s more chance of finding rocking horse shit! For this reason I would argue the democratic socialist revolution does not need the so-called revolutionary party who wish to substitute themselves for the proletariat as a whole. ‘Power corrupts absolute power corrupts absolutely’
Will this scenario of socialist revolution ever happen? That I cannot answer as people, for the time being, appear generally happy with been exploited and settle for a few crumbs from the table of the wealthy. It is not a question of wanting a larger slice of the cake but moreover we want to ‘own the bakery’. People may appear happy enough at the moment, certainly in the Western world, but ideas and thoughts can change in struggle. That struggle one day will have to be waged. The question is when this transformation of class power will occur not if.
Would the bourgeoisie fight back? Yes, without a doubt, they would not hand over the means of production, distribution and exchange land and estates which the minority class presently own. They would fight using their armies, and this applies to any country, to crush the revolutionary workers organisation and it for this reason the proletariat must have the ability to defend themselves meaning an armed wing. This armed wing would defend the revolution, as did the Red Army in the USSR before the likes of Lenin reinterpreted all “power to the soviets” to mean all power to the Bolsheviks and himself in particular. This was when the distorted version of socialism in the USSR began to go tragically wrong. We must learn the lessons of history and not fall for the Soviet model, though it was better than the mess presently prevailing in that part of the world.
In theory the political party would dissolve itself once the overthrow of capitalism has been achieved. In reality would this happen? In my experience after the parties who claim revolutionary status have stopped fighting each other the one which takes the roll of “vanguard” of the revolution will not dissolve itself and hand power to the elected councils. There’s more chance of finding rocking horse shit! For this reason I would argue the democratic socialist revolution does not need the so-called revolutionary party who wish to substitute themselves for the proletariat as a whole. ‘Power corrupts absolute power corrupts absolutely’
Will this scenario of socialist revolution ever happen? That I cannot answer as people, for the time being, appear generally happy with been exploited and settle for a few crumbs from the table of the wealthy. It is not a question of wanting a larger slice of the cake but moreover we want to ‘own the bakery’. People may appear happy enough at the moment, certainly in the Western world, but ideas and thoughts can change in struggle. That struggle one day will have to be waged. The question is when this transformation of class power will occur not if.
 |
| Caoimhin O’Muraile is Independent Socialist Republican and Marxist. |
Vanguard parties are too much like religious sects. I never believed in their ability to achieve much other than to enrich or empower their leaders. Once Lenin abandoned the dictatorship of the proletariat in favour of the dictatorship of the party over the proletariat, the game was up. It was a complete abandonment of how Marx defined the dictatorship of the proletariat. It was back to the same old, same old - people at the top, people in the middle and people at the bottom. Now we have the Chinese Capitalist Party calling itself the Chinese Communist Party - and the devotees still believe it.
ReplyDeleteI think we will see the world destroyed before we see a truly egalitarian world.
Yet for the sake of future generations we have little choice but to strive to improve the world in which we live.
I agree Anthony, remember the "Workers Revolutionary Party" and Gerry Healy?
DeleteCaoimhin O'Muraile
Caoimhin - I remember him only too well. He destroyed that party with the help of Vanessa Redgrave. There is a book recently published about it which I intend to read: The Party is Always Right: The Untold Story of Gerry Healy and British Trotskyism
DeleteIt might be a good one for you to review.
While Healy was a serial abuser, the cult like mentality that characterises vanguard parties allowed him to get away with it for so long. Think also of the SWP and Comrade Delta. Activists left in their hundreds over the way the party dealt with the allegations against him.
The surest way to stop progress and prevent revolution reaching its destination is to put it in the hands of a vanguard party.
How does someone from the Marxian tradition protect Marxism from the vanguard party?
Caoimhin, have you ever read any material from Carol Pateman on industrial democracy?
ReplyDeleteI read her back in the 80s Barry. David Held also covered her in his Models Of Democracy - useful intro
DeleteNo, I haven't Barry but will endeavour to do so.
ReplyDeleteCaoimhin O'Muraile
I'd be curious to see a tally of every single political party or movement that has materialised in Ireland island wide for the past 500 years.
ReplyDeleteAnd of those how many had splits.
I continue to love that phrase of Joan Robinson that Marxism is the Opium of the Marxists
DeleteFoucault expressed the following view:
Marxism exists in nineteenth-century thought as a fish exists in water; that is, it ceases to breathe anywhere else.
I don't think this is necessarily true but that it appears to many as true invites the question: how did it get to such a point?
The answer is not provided by Marx who described the symptom but not the cause when he observed that once the sects flourish then socialism doesn't. That much at least seems accurate.
Marxism may no longer exist in 19th century thought but the clunky jargon used by recent contributors is identical to that used by Marxists in the 1960s, when I was a young man. It makes painful reading, compared to, for instance, the language used by theists, to convince people that a God exists.
ReplyDeleteLike religion, people must be indoctrinated in Marxism from an early age. Marxism does not allow for alternative economic or social views, It flies against natural human creativity. This was most recently seen in Vietnam, after re-unification.
In accordance with classical Marxist theory, all the means of agricultural production were controlled by the state, to be allocated to farmers on the basis of equality and need.
In the early 1970s "the Vietnamese Communist Party initiated land reformto equalize landholdings in southern Vietnam soon after its victory. In 1976 the VCP Politburo authorized a land appropriation and redistribution campaign in southern Vietnam and banned private land sales. The VCP also outlawed the private ownership of farming equipment, tried to confiscate irrigation pumps, tractors, tillers, and water buffalo from farmers, and prevented families from raising livestock. Farmers were classified as poor or rich according to the amount of land they owned, which was reappropriated from those judged to have an excess and redistributed according to specific (family-related) formulae"
Farmers, of course. resisted the reforms.
In the Mekong Delta ," state food procurement decreased by more than half between 1976 and 1979. Farmers wrecked machines and slaughtered livestock before they could be expropriated by the VCP, and neglected those that became collective property. The number of functioning tractors in the Mekong Delta declined by 76 percent between 1975 and 1983, and nearly every province in southern Vietnam suffered from a shortage of draft power by the early 1980s".
The effects of collectivisation were disastrous.
"According to official statistics, Vietnam’s national rice production fell from 11.83 million tons in 1976 to 10.60 million tons in 1977. The following year, production was even less at 9.79 million tons. In the Mekong Delta, state food procurement decreased from 950,000 tons in 1976 to only 398,000 tons in 1979".
The experience of collectivisation was summarised as follows:
"State-initiated reforms to collectivize agriculture failed to improve the performance of the agricultural sector and eventually the Vietnamese Communist Party was forced to abandon collectivization altogether. Once farmers were freed from collective labor and could pursue private production for the free market, Vietnam’s agricultural output skyrocketed".
Vietnam is a good experience of Marxism in theory vs Marxism in practice. Having experienced total communism, it now has a significant private sector and "In 2001, the ruling Communist Party of Vietnam approved a 10-year economic plan that enhanced the role of the private sector, while reaffirming the primacy of the state. Growth then rose to 6% to 7% between 2000 and 2002 even in the midst of the global recession, making it the world's second fastest-growing economy. At the same time, investment grew threefold and domestic savings quintupled".
Vietnam is still has an authoritarian government, human rights are limited and it is bedevilled by corruption. Nevertheless, it has tried Marxism - and rejected it. There is no reason to believe any modern democracy will voluntarlly change to Marxism/communism.
https://digitalcommons.salve.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1020&context=fac_staff_pub
Marxism has great descriptive power but is very weak on prescriptive matters. Many people who can buy into what Marxism has to say on what is wrong with society simply cannot buy into what Marxism often prescribes for making society right. Then with so many CPs shafting the very people they claimed to represent, Marxism of the vanguard type has come to be viewed in many circles as simply another pathway to power for revolutionaries who are as Orwell pointed out for the most part social climbers with bombs.
DeleteJaysus, Anto, you're a great bleedin' man for the oul' aphorisms. Three great ones on this bleedin' page alone! (in my best Dublinese).
ReplyDeleteThat is Dublinese at ts finest!!
Delete